Elon Musk, the Messiah

Elon Musk has been rightfully described using some pretty incredible adjectives. For those who don't know, Elon Musk is:

1) the founder, CEO, and CTO of SpaceX (areospace manufacturer and space transport services)
2) co-founder, CEO, and product architect of Tesla Motors
3) chairman of SolarCity (designs, finances, and installs solar power systems)
4) co-founder of PayPal
5) co-chairman of OpenAI (a non-profit artificial intelligence research company)
etc...

Musk is a visionary entrepreneur who's primary goals are critically centered around changing the world by "reducing the risk of human extinction" and "making life multi-planetary". Now, anyone else having the same goals may be seen as hyperbolic, over-reaching, or melodramatic. However, Musk has the resources, the drive, and the ability to make these dreams a reality.

Musk recognizes Peter Singer's philosophy of doing the most good you can do. Not only is Musk an extremely successful billionaire, a revolutionary Renaissance man, and a practical environmentalist, he is also an exceptionally generous philanthropist.

Elon Musk established the Musk Foundation in 2001 in order to award monetary grants towards renewable energy research, human space exploration research, pediatric research, and science and engineering education. The total giving as of 2014 amounted to a sum of 1.29 million dollars (and has been voted the ugliest website created by a multi-millionaire by Forbes Magazine: www.muskfoundation.org).

Musk, with all the wisdom of a multi-millionaire and a Ph.D. in applied physics, decided to focus his non-profit organization towards issues we rightfully haven't really discussed much in class. He thinks outside the box and transcends conventional non-profit missions of making the world a better place.

For example, the Musk Foundation has supported projects and research into experiments such as:
1) Placing an experimental greenhouse on Mars in order to make colonization possible (Project Mars Oasis)
2) Creating advanced interplanetary rockets which would make public space travel possible
3) Creating affordable solar power systems in areas hit by disaster
4) Investigating safe and beneficial ways of integrating artificial intelligence into our society
5) Alzheimer's disease research, and constructing modern, technologically advanced pediatric hospitals.
and that is only to name a few.

My question to you is: if you had the power, influence, and opportunity that Elon Musk has (net worth 12.7 billion dollars) what massive issues facing our world and our future would you focus on? Elon Musk wishes to save humanity from extinction. What are your goals?

A new variable to consider before giving

As we started to embark on our tour of The Children's Home's facilities, a familiar face called to me from a distance. As he walked closer to our group, I realized it was my friend JaVon who I often play basketball with.  JaVon was a senior when I was a freshman (Class of 2013), played on the D1 basketball team, and returned to finish his Master's Degree at BU.  A few weeks ago, I had actually been talking to JaVon about how he was spending his time post-graduation and what direction he was taking his career. He spoke passionately to me about the non-profit he was working at and how it not only allowed him to strive towards career goals and apply his education (he studied Urban Planning), it was also incredibly rewarding.  It was so rewarding, actually, that JaVon made a point to tell me that the pay was not great and far below what someone with a Master's Degree can expect to make, yet he still loved the work and was so happy to be working there. Well I forgot exactly where JaVon had said he worked, but to my surprise on Tuesday, he apparently works at The Children's Home.
After seeing JaVon on Tuesday, I explained to him our project and he was thrilled to hear that the home could be getting more money and promised me that there could be no better place to donate the money.  This recommendation means a lot for many reasons.  The first is that JaVon is very experienced regarding non-profits.  He has worked on service projects in recreation parks, in his hometown Boys and Girls Club in Harlem, and he does considerable work with special needs children.  In short, JaVon has seen his fair share of charity.  He is both educated and experienced. He knows a good non-profit when he sees one.  Secondly, JaVon is working there for a measly wage and he has no long term commitment to the charity. He has told me he plans to return to Harlem by the summer time and his time at the Home will then be done. He will not personally benefit from our donation.  Unlike an executive director or head of funding for an organization, JaVon has no reason to sell us on the home.  His opinion carries much more weight to me than anything written in an RFP or said during a round table discussion or tour.  However, let me note that both the round table discussion and tour left me very impressed.
For now, my conversation with JaVon has vaulted the home to the top of my rankings thus far.  But, more importantly, it has instilled in me a new desire to tap into a resource we have not heavily considered: the opinions of the wage workers at the non-profits we are visiting.  As I've said before, these workers can prove to be more reliable sources than the executive directors, CEOs, and RFPs.  Their long-term success is often not tied to the organization.  If they are willing to work there on a lesser wage and speak incredibly highly about the organization that certainly means excellent things for the organization.  I want to find the most enthusiastic, meagerly paid non-profit workers and I want to listen to them tell me why their organization is great--and I'm likely to believe them.
I believe it is in our class' best interest to interview as many workers as we can.  Or even just speak to them as we pass through the locations.
I'd like to raise a few questions for you all.  Can we take all the executive directors have to say for truth? Or must we cynically take it with a grain of salt?  Who are the most important people to speak to when evaluating an organization?
Please, share your thoughts with me.

New or Established?

Towards the end of class on Thursday, we discussed shortly the idea of giving to a brand new program versus giving to an established and proven program. This is a very interesting discussion to me, as I see the merits in both sides, and I am still not sure where I lean. I think this is as especially important debate because this is an issue we are facing to some extent with our grant decision this semester. Do we give to a program that has been established for years, providing know results, or do we take a chance and give to a program that is just starting out and has potential to build into something permanent?

Established programs are a strong choice because they appear safe. We can, to some extent, expect this program to continue to be around, and we are contributing to their continued success. It is a known quantity in that we know what kind of result they produce because we have seen it year after year. We know they are having an impact, and we don’t have to worry about our donation being for nothing if they aren’t there next year because in all likelihood, they will be around for a while. We also have more specifics about the programs operations and budgets because they have it all down to a science. However, just because a program has been around for years does not mean

Newer programs look less secure. We do not know how long these programs will be around, or if they will go on after this year, or if they will exist at all if they do not receive our grant. We do not know the impact new programs will have because they have small or non-existent track records, and without results it is difficult to justify giving. We do not know if the community needs a these programs, because if there was a need, it would seem logical to expect one to already be in place. The real issue, I believe, with new programs, is that we are unsure and we do not want to take a risk.

I would argue that all philanthropy is inherently risky. Even established programs have unfortunately ended, and every established program has to start with someone taking the plunge. We are taking a gamble that our grants will be impactful wherever we give them, so ruling out young and new programs right out of the gate might be acting prematurely because they might be exactly what is needed. I like the idea of funding a young or new program and helping them get established, because if they find their footing and can really serve the community for years to come, it would be nice to know we played a part in that change. On the other hand, giving to an established program eliminates some of the risk involved and allows a community staple to continue to work. Hopefully the upcoming site visits can shed some light on this topic and we can make a decision that will impact the youth of this community for the better.

Please share your thoughts on  new programs and organizations versus established ones.

Catholic Charities VS. YMCA

            We first visited Catholic Charities where we were able to talk with Valerie, the executive administrator. Although she was able to answer most of our questions, I don’t think that she was able to fully answer all the questions we had. For example, when asked about the budget deficit, she said that she was unsure and would have to ask someone else to fully have our question answered. I understand that her position does not require her to know about the budget but I do feel as if the other person should have been around in order to answer our questions since the budget of the organization has to do with our decision-making process. Another reason that I am hesitant to donate our money to Catholic Charities is because there is a long wait list for the program. According to Peter Singer, if we wanted to do the most good with our money, we should pick somewhere that could help children as they need it instead of being put on a wait list. Although I have other concerns about Catholic Charities, space permits only these few flags.

           

            After visiting the YMCA, I feel as if I better understand the program that they applied for funding. However, the way Dan, the fund development officer, answered our questions were much different than the way Valerie did. For example, it was questioned why they chose to apply for funding for this program rather than another. Dan responded that it was the program that he was most passionate about. Although it is good to see that members of the staff are passionate about what they do, I feel as if that still did not answer the question. Another thing that I found fishy was that when asked about the operating grant, we were told that the CEO did not want to apply for that grant. I believe that the YMCA does great work, especially after talking to Dan, and feel as if they could benefit from that grant as well as well as the program grant and they would both be put to good use.

            Based on these 2 organizations alone, I feel as if the YMCA would best use our money. I think that Dan was more passionate and excited about the difference that his program could make. It would help more than 360 children in the Binghamton School District, impact the families of these children, and could also have a lasting impact on the children because the things they learn through this program could be applied throughout life. Best of all, the program is free to students and it takes place at the school, which is a concern I know that many people had. Based on the results that Dan talked about, there was an increase in demand for healthier food options at school, a better understanding of healthy lifestyles, and more communication at home about healthy food.

            Based off these site visits, where do you think our money would be best used? What still raises concerns for you? Are there any other questions that you still feel are unanswered? After the site visit, do you feel as if Valerie and Dan made the best case for their programs?

There Is More That Meets the Eye than the RFP

So far in our class, we were able to conduct two site visits - one at Catholic Charities and the YMCA. Both were very different experiences in my opinion. Before we conducted these site visits, we were given the chance to review the RFP. After each group's presentations, we were able to get a sort of in-depth view at what the organizations requested money for and how successful they were at accomplishing their respective missions. However, I think that there is more that meets the eye than just the RFP alone - as both of the site visits were unlike what the RFP had set forth.

Upon hearing the RFP presentation on Catholic Charities, I was pretty convinced that they did a good job at accomplishing their mission statement and reaching out to as many people as possible. However, after seeing the site for myself, my high opinion of the organization sort of changes. Yes, I still believe that they are a respectable organization that should receive aid if our class provides it, but I don't think that they are a top contender on my list so far. Yes, I am well aware that we only have attended two site visits so far, but I thought that the YMCA site visit was much more eye-opening. We were able to see the facility and see actual people using the services that the Y actually provides. To me, seeing is so much more effective and emotionally appealing than just hearing someone talk about what their organization does and does not do. Rather than just chatting with us for an our, the YMCA donor outreach director took us around the whole site and even did a quick Q&A session that was rather emotionally appealing. He shared with us why he loves the job that he does and I think that that really got the classes attention. I just wish that they also applied for the organizational grant just so they have a better chance of receiving any type of funding if they do not end up winning the program fund. It is amazing how much a site visit can really alter one's opinion of the organization as a whole! Also, I think that Catholic Charities had a lot of debt that they have incurred over time - so that is another set back. The YMCA seems more established as they have the funds to support this program but they are seeking our class funds to expand to other school as well.

Here are a few questions that I have for the class:

1. What is your opinion of the site visits so far?
2. Do you think that the RFP's did a fair job at conveying the organization's goals? And vice versa.
3. What's more effective in your opinion, touring the organization's facilities or have an hour long Q&A session?

Comparing Site Visits

As we consider our five finalist organizations, continue site visits, and approach our final decision deadline, it becomes very important that we be able to compare the different organizations and be able to differentiate their strengths and weaknesses from the other organizations. After our second site visit to the YMCA last week, I started to reflect on what we have gained from these site visits and how we can use the information gained from each visit to compare the organizations eventually as we move towards making our final decision as to where our money will be given.

                  For our first site visit to Catholic Charities, I think most of us went in with many questions about their Community Connections program, specifically how it operated and how our money would be used to help fund it. At the site visit, most of our questions were answered. We learned that the program has been evolving from the old Gateway program to become more easily accessible to kids in schools, that the social workers must be licensed but are paid well below the usual rate for similar work, and that Catholic Charities needs money from grants like ours in order to continue and hopefully expand the program to other schools and serve the 80 kids currently on the waitlist for the program. From the information we have so far, strengths of this organization include: history of involvement in the region, large network of other related services in the organization, recognized need, and great potential for meaningful impact from our grant. Catholic Charities and the Gateway program have been addressing mental health needs for children and families in the community since the 1980s and are therefore trusted/known in the community and have been able to evolve to meet the needs of the community. Also, they are a large organization with a variety of youth and family services, so they can refer youth to different services depending on their individual needs, which is valuable to impacting youth in multiple facets of their lives. Another strength of Catholic Charities is the demonstrated demand for their program, evidenced by the wait list for the program. This demand and Catholic Charities’ plans to expand their program to other schools is a positive thing for us, because our money would make a huge difference in allowing this program to continue and to expand. However, some weaknesses of this organization or things we still have questions about include specific budget information, how the program site runs, and how results are measured. At the site visit, the representative was unable to answer financial questions. In addition, we didn’t get to visit the actual site of the program and see how it looks and runs on a daily basis. Finally, we could use more information about how the satisfaction surveys were given and how their statistics about 70% meeting objectives were obtained.

                  For our second visit at the YMCA, I think that we were more prepared for how the site visits go and what questions we should ask. We learned that the YMCA, similar to Catholic Charities, has been involved in the community for a long time and has evolved their programs and services as well as expanded and updated to continue to address community needs. We also learned that the program we would be funding would be integrated into local schools in order to address nutritional and physical education needs for children and that the program would be provided free of charge. From the information we’ve gathered, strengths of this organization include: history of involvement in the region, a wide array of programs for children and families, and great potential for meaningful impact from our grant. YMCA is a well known organization that has been around for many years and is well accepted and utilized in the community. Also, with a membership to the YMCA, families can access a variety of services including sports programs, childcare, and specialty classes that help in child development in many aspects of children's lives. This organization also has a great opportunity for us to make a meaningful difference, because our money would go a long way to fund the program and expand it to include schools in need who have already expressed their interest in implementing it. However, some weaknesses of this organization or things we still have questions about include how the program runs at the schools and how effective it actually is in creating lasting impacts on the children’s health knowledge and overall health in the long run. The program was only piloted in one school and although post test scores increased about 100% for the children, it would be good to get more information on how the program impacts their home life and overall health. In addition, we weren’t able to see the program in action at a school, which could have been more informative than touring the YMCA.

                  Overall, from the site visits we have gained a more in-depth perspective on the organizations, the people running the programs and their motivations, how the programs are run, and how the organizations would use our money to make a difference and amplify the change they are already accomplishing. At this point, it is already difficult to determine which organization would be better to donate to, but after the site visits, I personally left the YMCA with a better feeling about their program and organization in general than Catholic Charities. I think that the YMCA was able to describe their program with more clarity, and was also able to tell us how many kids would be helped and that our money would be going to pay the educators and provide snacks and sports equipment for the program as it expands to multiple schools. At Catholic Charities, there seemed to be less passion for the program, and the specifics of what our money would be going towards (How many schools could CCC be expanded to? Is short term counseling for minimal hours truly effective for most kids? Would additional qualified social workers be hired?) were less certain. As we move forward in this process, let’s continue to get valuable information from site visits, keep asking questions, finding comparison points, and analyzing the organizations skeptically. Also, here’s a link to an article that discusses tips for conducting site visits http://www.bridgespan.org/Philanthropy-Advice/Researching-Nonprofits/Due-Diligence-Tool/Quick-Guide-to-Conducting-a-Nonprofit-Site-Visit.aspx#.Vwra5RMrL-Y

Questions:

Do you think site visits are important in our decision-making process?

What information do you think is most valuable to gain at site visits?

So far, which organization do you think could be the best fit for us to give our money to and why?

How do you think can we begin to compare organizations and their site visits?

Final Decision

Hello! 

Based on this title, you might know what this post is about. I have finally decided where to donate my two weeks winning money to! Drumroll please….. It is a local organization called Center for Employment Opportunities more well-known as CEO. The only reason for my delay in donating is because I had a difficult time deciding between Catholic Charities Food Pantry, where I volunteer or to CEO, an organization I learned about through the Public Learning Service Community.

Although I did not request RFPs from these two organizations, I was mentally comparing several criteria’s which are similar to what we have discussed throughout the course:

        -    Where would my money go towards?

              -    Who am I helping?

              -    Which issue do I want to help more?

What really made me choose CEO was when I talked to Katie Blaine on the phone. She told me honestly that most funds or money given to the CEO is used on salary for the workers. But because I personally called and asked about where the money would help in the organization, she said would make sure the donation will be used towards the clients they target. More specifically, someone who is employed for a month or two will be rewarded a $25 gift card. This gift card is a motivation and recognition for men who wants to make a change and really integrate back into society. This also provides them extra money in their pockets and a great encouragement. 

As a college student, I don’t often think about issues like incarceration because it is not a common issue raised in conversations. But most of us know, a criminal record makes it very difficult for felons to land a job after they come back out from prison. Organizations like CEO teaches them how to work around that stain on their history and help them acquire new skills for future employment. And I hope my donation can really brighten someone up and encourage him to really join the community and make Binghamton an even better place. 

Thank you for reading and I hope this makes you think about the issues we do not focus in class as much. Should this be an issue we should worry about? 

Are Supervised Injection Sites Really So Great?

Throughout this semester our class has really talked a lot about the issue of heroin addiction not only in Broome County but across the country. It has become an epidemic in recent years so there is an effort to do something about these rising numbers of heroin addicts and heroin overdoses. One solution presented was the supervised injection sites, and this has already been implemented in other parts of the world including Vancouver. Our class seemed to be in general agreement that this was a good idea and a possible solution, including myself. As i read more into the situation, I don't know if I still feel that way. 

A few weeks ago I read an article in opposition to supervised injection sites and it made several valid points on why this isn’t something that we should seriously consider in NYC (http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/donovan_plan_for_supervised_he.html). Staten Island Representative Daniel Donovan claims that sites such as these “defies reason” and would only encourage heroin use in the long run. It might not encourage more people to start using heroin, but those who do wouldn’t have a reason to stop. The risk of dying from an overdose is severely decreased and by having a site where users can go, you also attract dealers. You could increase law enforcement activity in that area to stop this, but then what are the police supposed to do about those people using the clinic, who are using heroin and have it in their possession, which is illegal. 

I have also become skeptical because there aren’t any statistics to show that this program essentially decreases heroin addiction levels in an area. The only thing that these sites are doing is prolonging the lives of heroin users just a little bit longer. Heroin has extremely detrimental effects on the body. Heroin destroys your kidneys, liver, and brain, and you can no longer function in every day life. If these injection sites were successfully getting users clean then I would be all for this as a solution. My problem is that there really aren’t any statistics. In 2012, an injection site in Vancouver saw over 9,000 unique individuals using the site. Of those 9,000 less than 500 were discharged from their onsite detox facility, just over 5%. That doesn’t include patients who used outside facilities but it still shows that this isn’t an effective way of solving the heroin addiction problem throughout the world. I don’t have a solution, but a better one needs to be found than these sites. 

Philanthropy in the World of Sports

Derek Jeter, Peyton Manning, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, I am sure that nearly all of us know these names and some of us may even look up to them. Professional athletes are some of the most famous and influential people in the United States and the world. People naturally look up to their favorite athletes and in turn are influenced by what they do off the field as well as on the field. The enormous impact that they have on society begs the question of whether or not professional athletes are obligated to give back? In addition, another topic of controversy among the philanthropic ways of professional athletes is what stimulates their giving. Why do pro athletes give? Do they give to make a difference, or do they give to enhance their image in the realm of sports?

Before continuing please read this article:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2010/03/Issue-130/Events-Attractions/IMG-World-Congress-The-Role-Of-Philanthropy-In-Sports.aspx

Personally, I disagree with those people who say that athletes have an obligation to give back to their community because without their fan base they would be nothing. I am in disagreement with these people because it is now the athletes money and although they made that money because of others, it is their money, and they can do what they please with it. This does not mean that I do not think that professional athletes should give, in fact, I think that professional athletes can be the most influential donors. Since people look up to professional athletes, they will follow what they do. Therefore, when people who look up to Lebron James see that in one year alone he donated over 5 million dollars to the boys and girls club and other charities, they will be more inclined to follow in their role model’s footsteps and also give to organizations similar to the boys and girls club. As Haas said, “the power of sports is larger than life in this world,” the influence that athletes and teams have on society is tremendous. For this reason, I think that professional sports would be an ingenious place to promote philanthropy and charitable giving. If professional sports organizations like the NBA, NFL, and MLB decided to all make a pact to try to make a difference in the world by freely promoting philanthropy, they could affect real change more quickly than we have ever seen. During this year's SuperBowl, at any point in time there was an average of 111.9 million viewers. So if the NFL allowed for one free commercial with a very popular player, such as Peyton Manning, to promote charitable giving, it would compel tens of millions of people to give to charity. If each professional sports organization allowed for just one commercial during a championship game, it would spread awareness for the need of charitable giving and stimulate millions more to give and create a huge difference in the lives of those in need.

Lastly, I would like to address why professional athletes give. For the most part professional athletes are just like us, they are normal people who feel for others in need. Most athletes probably just give to charity in order to give back to the community and fan base that has helped them so much throughout their careers. In addition to these athletes, there are also athletes that give in order to improve their image among the sports world. Some “dirty” players may start out giving to make people like them more and to make people see that they are not these hard hitting, blind siding players. Ndamukong Suh is known as one of the dirtiest players in the entire NFL yet he is the second most giving professional athlete in all of sports. Even though this may have started off as a selfish reason used to improve his image, I believe that he got so much out of giving that he decided to give more and more over time.

Do you believe that professional athletes have an obligation to give back?

Should professional sports organizations promote philanthropy?

Why do you think most professional athletes give?

Not All Issues are Big Issues

Hey class, welcome back, I hope everyone had a good break.
Today we began to talk about rating non-for profits. This relates to giving where it will do the most good that Peter Singer preaches because if an organization is running well than this is where the most good will come from. We are looking at websites that are grading the charities and they have their scores. These scores are not definitive grades, though. The website has its criteria and we have our own. As we looked at charity navigator today it had a two tier grading system, acceptability and transparency, and financials. If I were grading an organization this is not how I would grade them. My grade would be based on one thing and one thing only, results. If an organization is running a system that is producing results and has means to continue to produce results than it is the best organization out there.
People get caught up in this mind set of, oh well look at what could of happened. All these organizations out there are helping humanity. If an organization wants to put McDoubles into the mouths of homeless people than by all means go ahead. They will probably have trouble getting funding and will then fail. So in my mind just surviving as an organization is successful. If there is an issue and somebody has an idea than he should try to solve it. We need more people out in the world helping others. We do not need to do the most good. We need to just do good. If your solution is a good one than people will find out about it and they will help you help others because there are other people that are going to have the same interest in an issue area.
Here is an organization that gives help to guinea pigs,http://www.ctguineapigrescue.org/. This one, http://www.noetic.org/about/overview is out there to help the science of conscience. These organizations are not doing the most good for society, but they are helping society. In my mind these are important for the world we live in. There needs to be someone to fight for every issue out there and I hope there is. Let me know where you stand on this.